onsdag 3 november 2010

Will Mann Be Sued for Incorrect Science?

In the wake of Election Day, prepare for a new round of politicized skirmishes in the never-ending climate wars, with the battleground shifting once again to Capitol Hill hearing rooms.

Many climate scientists, still reeling from a year of largely unsubstantiated accusations and attacks, are already girding for battle, with some publicly decrying the prospect of congressional hearings on climate science under the near certain shift to Republican control of the House.

Revkin's worries concern in particular

Michael Mann, the climatologist at Pennsylvania State University who has for years been a focal point for assaults on climate science, made the point most directly in a recent Op-Ed article in the Washington Post. He listed some of the elected officials who have used, or plan to use, their offices to probe the integrity of climate research and rejected any claim that such efforts are about revealing the truth.

Let us then listen to what Mann is saying:

The basic physics and chemistry of how carbon dioxide and other human-produced greenhouse gases trap heat in the lower atmosphere have been understood for nearly two centuries.

It is leading to more widespread drought, more frequent heat waves and more powerful hurricanes.

Even without my work, or that of the entire sub-field of studying past climates, scientists are in broad agreement on the reality of these changes and their near-certain link to human activity.

Burying our heads in the sand would leave future generations at the mercy of potentially dangerous changes in our climate.

The only sure way to mitigate these threats is to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions dramatically over the next few decades.

But the attacks against the science must stop. They are not good-faith questioning of scientific research. They are anti-science.

So Mann is claiming that a certain "greenhouse gas effect" is "understood" since 200 years, evidently referring to the work by Fourier, Tyndall and Arrhenius, in "broad agreement".

But this claim is scientifically incorrect: The effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is not understood scientifically: It is not even clear if increasing levels will cause warming or cooling or nothing. Evidence is presented in previous posts and in particular in the upcoming book:

Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death to the Greenhouse Gas Theory.

So we now see a process forming, in the wake of Election Day, where scientists claiming dangerous effects of CO2 based on a certain "greenhouse gas theory", will be tried in court. This is the only way to resolve the "climate war". It will be interesting to follow the trial, and maybe contribute a bit to the process...And Mann is not alone: There are many CO2 alarmists speaking very loudly, and so it will be a quite big process..

A most essential aspect of a trial is that you cannot as accused refuse to show up: The tactics of CO2 alarmists to not debate with CO2 alarmism skeptics, thus does not work.

In fact, a scientific debate is a form of trial where different parties present evidence to a court of scientists deciding the truth. Mann seeks to avoid trial by claiming that scientific debate is "anti-science", but this is also incorrect: Open debate is a most essential principle of science,

and of democracy....Science without some form of trial is anti-science...